These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] New Wormholes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2012-01-13 01:42:48 UTC
I would like to propose a few ideas for new types of wormhole. For those that could benefit from it, here is a quick explanation of the terms I'm using.

  • Max Stable Time: The maximum amount of time a wormhole will stay open
  • Max Stable Mass: The maximum amount of mass a wormhole can transit before collapsing
  • Mass Regeneration: The amount of mass a wormhole regenerates per cycle (24 hours)
  • Maximum Jump Mass: The maximum amount of mass that can transit a wormhole in one go


Proposal 1: Narrow and deep

  • Max Stable Time: 12 hours
  • Max Stable Mass: Unlimited
  • Mass Regeneration: 0
  • Maximum Jump Mass: 15,000,000 kg
The narrow and deep wormhole would be too small for battleships. Battlecruisers, cruisers, destroyers, shuttles, industrials, frigates, etc. The mass allowance will let the lighter of each race's Transport ships through, but not the heavier versions (Impel, Bustard, Occator or Mastadon). The limiting factor here is time, not mass.


Proposal 2: Fat and shallow

  • Max Stable Time: 24 hours
  • Max Stable Mass: 800,000,000 kg
  • Mass Regeneration: 0
  • Maximum Jump Mass: Unlimited
The fat and shallow wormhole allows gigantic ships to move about, but will collapse after relatively small amount of mass goes through it. With this hole, a ship of literally any mass can travel through to the other side. A capital class ship likely collapsing the wormhole as it goes. Any capital class ship will collapse this hole on the first jump.


There are no doubt other variants that we could imagine. I'll leave at these two to start off with. If there is interest, we could come up with more.
Lysaeus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-01-13 04:03:29 UTC
No.

You are obviously trying to Introduce a class of wormholes that would allow supercapitals into wormhole space would make it far too easy to make anybody's home system into an impenetrable fortress.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3 - 2012-01-13 05:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Tell Annoh
Lysaeus wrote:
No.

You are obviously trying to Introduce a class of wormholes that would allow supercapitals into wormhole space would make it far too easy to make anybody's home system into an impenetrable fortress.
Well, think about that. How do you imagine that would work exactly?

I think it would be rare for that to happen, but, I see your point. What about a limit at 1.2 billion kg? With that limit, only ships that could feasibly be built in the wormhole already would be let in or out. Does that address the concern?
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-01-13 05:31:32 UTC
I think I just tossed my cookies reading this idea.

Shocked


TLDR - #### No.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Lysaeus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-01-13 05:37:07 UTC
A 1.2 billion limit would remove the ability for supercaps but it would also counter the entire idea for that wormhole. This workaround makes it sound like you're trying to get capitals into your C1-4 without having to build them inside.

As for rarity even at a slow rate it wouldn't be difficult for a larger C5/6 corp to slowly fill their systems with supercaps whilst any potential invaders will be forced to line their capitals up for the slaughter.

The only thing I can suggest is to scrap the idea, you're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#6 - 2012-01-13 09:51:44 UTC
I wonder what it is about WH space that makes people come up with the most terrible ideas imaginable?
Kwashi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-01-13 11:42:21 UTC
Supercap wormhole shenanigans aside, I also worry about that other one.

Elimination of the total mass stat on that "narrow and deep" hole would suck most of the fun out of a wormhole. One of the best things about wormspace is if one does not like the level of content one is getting from one's neighboring systems, one can quickly rectify that with a battleship or three and roll some new possibilities. Having control over system connectivity is the bread and butter of wormspace that most distinguishes it from regular nullsec (yes, even more than the lack of local IMO).
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#8 - 2012-01-13 15:55:48 UTC
Lysaeus wrote:
This workaround makes it sound like you're trying to get capitals into your C1-4 without having to build them inside.
I assure you, this proposal is not being submitted for my personal benefit. As far as holes big enough for capitals to fit in, I would just point out that C140's, C248's, C391's, D792's and like 13 other wormholes have a billion kg or above max jump mass. By my count there are 14 wormhole types that have a greater max jump mass than what I propose. Do you object to these? If not, why?

Gypsio III wrote:
I wonder what it is about WH space that makes people come up with the most terrible ideas imaginable?
Is there a class you take on how to talk but contribute nothing, or is it just the way you live your life?

Kwashi wrote:
Elimination of the total mass stat on that "narrow and deep" hole would suck most of the fun out of a wormhole. One of the best things about wormspace is if one does not like the level of content one is getting from one's neighboring systems, one can quickly rectify that with a battleship or three and roll some new possibilities. Having control over system connectivity is the bread and butter of wormspace that most distinguishes it from regular nullsec (yes, even more than the lack of local IMO).
It would be a wild card, no doubt. I can't say that I really relish the idea of one of these things opening up to my hole, to be honest. Not being able to stop the flow of cruisers into your system could really turn out to be a total mess, but I thought it was a new variation on existing wormholes.

But besides occasionally removing some control from wh settlers, where does it break down?
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-01-13 17:53:19 UTC
Why exactly is such a change needed? I am all for variety but I see no reason to do this other than for variety. I don't see any reason why not to allow supercaps into WH space...they will only be used for ratting ultimately anyway...perhaps a little defense but how often does that happen?

If you let supercaps in then make the escalations caused by super caps rediculously hard. 24 battleships warp in when the subcap arrives...

Awesome...

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#10 - 2012-01-13 20:54:42 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Why exactly is such a change needed? I am all for variety but I see no reason to do this other than for variety. I don't see any reason why not to allow supercaps into WH space...they will only be used for ratting ultimately anyway...perhaps a little defense but how often does that happen?

If you let supercaps in then make the escalations caused by super caps rediculously hard. 24 battleships warp in when the subcap arrives...

Awesome...
Oh, this is totally for variety. There is no real problem I'm trying to fix, I was just throwing the idea out there to see what the feedback was.
Lysaeus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-01-14 03:54:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lysaeus
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I don't see any reason why not to allow supercaps into WH space...they will only be used for ratting ultimately anyway...perhaps a little defense but how often does that happen?


epic troll is epic or terrible idea is terrible.

And while we're at it, let's just make sleeper sites respawn instantly in the same system and allow sov.
Kwashi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-01-14 11:48:13 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
But besides occasionally removing some control from wh settlers, where does it break down?

It temporarily disables one of the core attractions of wormspace.

I'm also not in favor of a new special wormhole that turns on local chat for 24 hours, or a new special wormhole that turns Sleepers into regular k-space rats for 24 hours. This new special wormhole that generates a stargate for 24 hours would be in the same category.

It's not a new feature, it's a removal of an existing feature.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#13 - 2012-01-14 20:55:47 UTC
Kwashi wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
But besides occasionally removing some control from wh settlers, where does it break down?
It temporarily disables one of the core attractions of wormspace.
Certianty? I can hardly make any proposals about wormholes without a cluster of comments about how wormholes are supposed to be unpredictable and mysterious. In a lot of ways I agree with the notion that wormholes are the lawless frontier where the unexpected is the norm, although I live in one so I have a vested interest in them not being total chaos.

I understand the impulse to keep a handle on ideas like this so that the "mysterious" doesn't make w-space unlivable. I think you and I share that motivation. But keep in mind that wormhole settlers aren't farmers. We're pioneers.
Kwashi wrote:
I'm also not in favor of a new special wormhole that turns on local chat for 24 hours, or a new special wormhole that turns Sleepers into regular k-space rats for 24 hours.
Neither am I. Which is why I'm not suggesting either of these ideas.